Skip to main content

View Diary: Free speech under attack in Denmark: Convicted for criticizing Islam (174 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where do you get that from? (5+ / 0-)

    As a woman from a Muslim background, she may very well know something about what is in the Koran and what sharia law permits. Sharia definitely permits wife-beating, honor killings, and marrying off nine-year-old girls. I don't know first-hand about the rest of it, but she may very well have a case for all of her charges.

    •  I didn't say her argument should be illegal, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      protectspice, mint julep, johnel, JDsg

      merely that it's not logically justified.

      The biggest problem is that Islam does not have a formal hierarchical system like those in Christian denominations. So it's very easy to find "a Muslim authority" who argues something, and then use that to say "Sharia" supports it, when it doesn't.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:16:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I understand it, there are 4 major schools of (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kimbeaux, johnel, SixSixSix, Sue B

        sharia legal rulings. Many of the most objectionable practices are condoned by all 4 schools and are therefore considered sacrosanct (if something is ruled permissible by all four major schools of jurisprudence, no one else can overturn it). If there are a few minority scholars who argue that something is not allowed, very few people will follow them. If someone wants to say that Sharia doesn't support something, they need to find major scholars ruling that way. Whereas if people are following the Muslim authorities and using their permission to do awful things, I don't see how you can argue that Sharia doesn't support it.

        Thus you see, for example, a Muslim woman on Kuwaiti television citing Islamic legal authorities to make her case that Russian girls should be kidnapped and imported to Kuwait to be raped and kept as sex slaves.There are umpteen authorities who argue that Sharia permits this -- you can find a list on this post on an Islamic Q&A site.  As the post notes, "There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman." When all the scholars agree, then that's settled Sharia. If someone wants to argue that it isn't, they'd better show up with some pretty robust evidence.

        •  Yes, the Qur'an DOES say that. BUT (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Noisy Democrat, JDsg, AoT

          Sharia also makes it difficult to HAVE a concubine in this era: it allows slavery only in the cases of (1) non-Muslim prisoners of war, and (2) the children of two parents both of whom are slaves.

          It also encourages the manumission of slaves/concubines, rather than keeping them as such.

          [I see this along the same lines as the prohibition in Leviticus 19:19—it's there, but, even if it is permissible, it's not something that should be exploited today.]

          We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

          by Samer on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:06:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's a big difference (0+ / 0-)

            There aren't any respected Jewish legal scholars -- or in fact, any at all, as far as I know -- arguing that slavery should still be legal, based on Leviticus. Nor any Christians. I believe tha later developments in Jewish and Christian law made the law in Leviticus obsolete, though I'd have to look it up. In any case, no one is pushing for it. Whereas there are Islamist groups and spokespeople arguing for it, in print and on television.

            As the Kuwaiti woman points out, there's no difficulty meeting the legal requirements for taking sex slaves. Since Chechnya is (often, if not continuously) at war with Russia, Russian women can be kidnapped, enslaved and raped in perfect accordance with Sharia law. An argument can also be made that US actions in Afghanistan, or US bombing of Syria (if it happens), would make it perfectly legal to kidnap and rape American women. Where's the legal difficulty?

            I don't know whether the Iranian diplomat who threatened that one of Obama's daughters, as well as other American women, would be kidnapped and raped (if we bomb Syria) was relying on this ruling, but I don't see why he couldn't.

      •  Here's my question, though... (5+ / 0-)

        Do any Muslim countries, particularly, the theocracies where Islam is the official religion, actually have any guarantees of equality for women codified into law? How about decriminalized homosexuality? Obviously, the beliefs of individual Muslims vary greatly, but it seems that subjugation of women is the norm in those countries. So how are we to take what is "True Islam" without examining the policies and beliefs of Islam-dominated countries?

        I understand that we Americans have in many ways been subjected to anti-Muslim propaganda for years. But still, the dogma of Islam seems to be pretty regressive when it comes to the rights of women, gays and non-Muslims Is that really even controversial?

        •  Not much more or much less than fundamental (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SixSixSix

          Christianity tries to subjugate those same groups (women, gays, non-believers).

          We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

          by Samer on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:07:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  does any state do so? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Noisy Democrat

            Don't we have to compare say Iran with another state, not look at Iran as compared with a say Rushdoony ideal?

          •  But I think the question was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SixSixSix

            Are there safeguards codified into law as they are in many countries in which Islam is not the official religion of the state.

          •  I agree. But that wasn't my question... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Noisy Democrat, eglantine

            For example, the Anglican church is the official religion of the UK, and yet women have guaranteed equality under the constitution. Costa Rica is an officially Catholic country, but has anti-discrimination and equality laws. With the exception of Turkey, do any officially Muslim states or those with a supermajority of Muslim citizens have the same guarantees of equality? Anti-discrimination laws?

            I don't actually know, but from what I can tell, the answer is no. Feel free to let me know if I am wrong, though.

            •  Indonesia has legal protections for women (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SixSixSix, Noisy Democrat, Samer, JDsg

              The implementation has left something to be desired, but it is the largest Muslim country in the world.

              It's good to remember that the legal protections that women have here in the US are a result of women fighting for those protections and weakening religion, not of religion be a source of equality for women.

              •  True, but in the Muslim world, they aren't (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SixSixSix, eglantine

                making as much progress. Lady Gaga had to cancel a concert in Indonesia after death threats. Women in parts of Indonesia are being forced to wear hijad and niqab (face veils). Things aren't going all that well in Indonesia.

                •  They're making progress (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SixSixSix, JDsg

                  It might not be as fast as you want it to be, but we didn't get where we are over night. Dismissing Muslims because they aren't all living in western democracies is absurd.

                  And we can look at abortion in the US if you want an example of women being shit on by Christians.

                  •  I'm not dismissing Muslims (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SixSixSix, Luftmensch

                    I'm saying that we in the US need to take a hard, serious look at the problem of Islamist anti-democracy movements and figure out how to deal with them. Assuming that every Muslim in the world, or even every Muslim in the West, loves democracy and wants to support it is naive and demonstrably wrong. Large organizations have declared that our system of government is evil and should be abolished; we need to take that in and decide how to deal with it.

                    •  The right wing hates democracy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Noisy Democrat

                      and worships authority no matter which religion they may be a part of, or if they are a part of no religion. That's where the support for anti-democracy movements come. Look at Greece and the rising Fascism there right now. Anti-democracy movements are much broader than just Muslims.

                      But, I think that censoring speech is part of the problem. That's making things less democratic.

                      •  I think part of our challenge will be to figure (0+ / 0-)

                        out how to stand up against the anti-democracy Islamists without empowering the anti-democracy Right. There's an excellent book called The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West that talks about this dilemma and the need for us to engage with the issue and work it through.

                        •  You're talking like we have to deal (0+ / 0-)

                          with Islamist groups as a threat to the US. They aren't. They are a threat to the people being oppressed by them. Just like Assad isn't a threat to us but is a threat to those he's oppressing.

                          •  They are a threat to the US (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kane in CA

                            Look at the Muslim Brotherhood. They are a vast, multinational organization that is very, very serious about replacing Western democracy with sharia law. A captured document released by the FBI in 1991 lays out their multi-decade plan and says that the Brotherhood must understand that "their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions." (You can get a quick idea of the problem if you watch the trailer for Jihad in America -- everything in it is documented and backed up by experts, some of them Muslims and ex-Muslims.)

                            It might seem fantastic, but these people are organized, well-funded, and serious. I'm sure that back in the 1800s -- not so long ago -- there were Native people saying "These Europeans aren't really a threat to our way of life. A few wagon trains, a few farms -- big deal. The idea that they could fundamentally change things here is nonsense." We see how well that worked out for them.

                          •  You're seriously out there (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            eglantine, angry marmot, JDsg

                            The Muslim brotherhood is not going to come take over the US. That's idiotic. If any religion is going to take over the US it's the Dominionists. They have actual power here and have been doing things like restricting women's access to abortion. You've bought into the right wing line, simple as that.

                          •  I notice a stunning lack of evidence (0+ / 0-)

                            in your claims. "That's idiotic" isn't much of a counterargument.  

                            I am worried about the Dominionists, but they aren't the only scary right-wing religious group out there.

                          •  I notice the stunning lack of evidence (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            angry marmot, JDsg

                            that the Muslim Brotherhood is any sort of threat to the US. It's fear mongering pure and simple.

                          •  Demographically (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JDsg, gzodik

                            it just isn't possible, at least not now and probably not for centuries. Muslims are a tiny proportion of the U.S. Even if they were 100% on board with these ideas, which they emphatically are not, they couldn't take over the government.

                            I'm not a fan of pretty much any form of religion, particularly the conservative varieties, whether Christian, Muslim or any other stripe. I also tend to feel like we may be too loathe to criticize religiously based things occurring elsewhere that if Christians in the US were doing them, we would not accept. But, I'm not worried about the Muslim Brotherhood and feel that the anti-Sharia laws that some states have passed are just silly in a country that is 98% non-Islamic. Even if they wanted to disrupt our form of government (which most don't), they don't have any way to do it.

                          •  the farther your comments push to the right (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT, alain2112, JDsg

                            hand side of the page, the more obvious your filiation to the "Eek! Eurabia!" nonsense and "Stop the Islamization of America [et cet.]" movements becomes.

                            Please proceed, Noisy Democrat...

                            Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

                            by angry marmot on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:55:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They are a threat to us, though the threat (0+ / 0-)

                            has not fully manifested yet. So far, it's just been people killed in terrorist attacks, and we haven't had very many. But the conflict is slowly coming to a head. Within 10-20 years I think we will be grappling with it more directly, and the sooner people get educated about the issues, the better. It's like global warming -- the seas aren't swallowing our cities yet, but we need to figure out what to do about it now.

                          •  p.s. and as I said, we'll need to figure out (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Luftmensch, Be Skeptical, Kane in CA

                            how to stand up against the Islamists without losing our nature as a democracy. It will take time to think this through. The sooner we start thinking, the better.

              •  Most religions are a barrier to equality..... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, Noisy Democrat, eglantine, erush1345

                Most religions (all?) are a barrier to equality. I'm an atheist, so I don't have much love for any religion. That doesn't mean I don't like the people of various religions. I just don't respect most of the dogma, particularly the parts that are regressive, bigoted and theocratic.

                My point was simply that there are officially Christian, and Christian-dominated countries, which have equality enshrined in their constitutions or anti-discrimination laws. Most officially Muslim/Muslim-dominated countries do not.

                As Meteor Blades says, "Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe."

                •  As someone else pointed out (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JDsg, SixSixSix

                  Afghanistan also has equality enshrined in it's constitution. For all the good it does. Iran is getting better as well through the work of various women there. I'm amazed we gave up on passing the ERA.

        •  Afghanistan, e.g. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eglantine

          The constitution of Afghanistan specifies Hanafi Islam. It's sort of hedged.

          When there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws regarding ruling on an issue, the courts’ decisions shall be within the limits of this Constitution in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence and in a way to serve justice in the best possible manner.
          The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

          Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

          Family is a fundamental unit of society and is supported by the state.

          The state adopts necessary measures to ensure physical and psychological well being of family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and the elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam.

          In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
          Equality of women and men is explicitly stated.
          The citizens of Afghanistan – whether man or woman – have equal rights and duties before the law.
          •  But notice that nothing can be contrary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SixSixSix

            to the sacred laws of Islam. So women can be declared equal, but it'll be illegal to outlaw child marriage, because it's permitted under sharia.

            When they say followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith, there is a whole list of restrictions under Islamic law that they don't mention. Christians are forbidden to build new churches, wear a cross in public, sing inside their own churches loudly enough that Muslims can hear, etc. Anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity is subject to the death penalty.

            •  The constitution came about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Noisy Democrat

              with some pretty intense behind the scenes dealmaking. It has the tensions in it, coming from that.

              The Violence against Women Law, issued by presidential decree, outlaws child marriage. As of this spring, it is of perhaps iffy status. It's not enforced, especially in remote areas.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • White House (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site